
Class 

Book. 































- •• H ■ 























































* 































. 








> 




















































































































» 


/ 













\ 


MR. BAYARD’S SPR 


UPON HIS MOTION 


TO AM£ND THE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY M T 

BY STRIKING OUT THAT PART WHICH 


IS IN ITALICS . 


Delivered in the Senate of the United States, 


TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1809. 


/ 


MR. GILES’S MOTION. 


“ Resolved, That the several laws laying an Embargo on all 
ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United States, 
be repealed on the 4th day of March next, ^ threat 

y Britain and France , and their dependencies -ond that provision be 
made by law for prohibition a.U commercial intercourse with those 
nations and their dependencies, and the importation of any article 
into the United States, the growth, produce or mamtf'acture of ei¬ 
ther of the said nations, or of the dominions of either of them 

IT will be perceived, Mr. President, by the motion which I 
have made to amend the resolution, offered by the honourable 
gentleman from Virginia, that 1 do not approve of the course 
which it seems the government have determined at length to 
pursue. The honourable gentleman has told us, it is aot h\s/ 
/ plan, and I give him credit for the fairness and candor with whic/ 
he has avowed the measures to which he would have resorted/- 
He would have raised the Embargo, and declared war against 
England. Being opposed in this scheme, by a majority of his 
friends, his next proposition was to issue letters of marlue and 
reprisal; finding, however, that the other House had refused to 
go even so far, he had on the principle of concession and conci¬ 
liation with his friends, agreed to take the course proposed in 
the resolution, in hopes that our vessels, going upon the ocean, 
and being captured under the orders in council, would drag the 
nation into a war; when he presumed the War being made upon 
us, we would agree to fight our enemy. Sir, it is upon this very 
ground, and considering this as its object, that I am opposed to 
the resolution. England is not our enemy, nor does a necessity 
exist to make her so. I am not going to deny that we have many 
and heavy complaints to make against her conduct, nor shall I 
contend that causes do not exist which might justify a war; but I 



A 






t- 3 3 &> 
7335 


, ,y, that policy forbids the measure, and that honor does 

: lire it. 

ntleman has painted in very glowing colors, the wrongs 
its which we have suffered from British violence ; he has 
> -, £ ;. j in hia catalogue the offensive acts of British agents, as 
the injurious pretensions and orders of the government. 

A j P n not to defend, nor even palliate any aggression, public or 
, ■ te, against the rights or honour of our country ; but, sm I 
j0 t conceal my surprise, that this gentleman, so much alive 
iritish wrongs, should be insensible to every thing which We 
re suffered from France. The gentleman has exhausted the 
nguage of terms of invective and reproach against the British 
overnrnent and nation, but he has been silent as the grave, as to 
die French. IIow can it be, that what is wrong in Britain, is 
right in France ? And wherefore is it, that the siime acts af 
France are borne with patience, which proceeding from Britain, 
excite such a spirit of indignation. You have the orders in coun¬ 
cil to complain of, but have you not the decrees of his Imperial 
Majesty ? We are told that the orders in council give us laws, 
regulate our commerce, and degrade us to the state of colonies; 
but do they contain more, or do they extend as far as the Impe¬ 
rial ? Do they make us more the colonies of Britain 

than the decrees th e colonies of France • And are we 

to invoke the spirit of liberty ana patriotism to a resistance to 
Britain, while we are tamely yielding ourselves to French bon¬ 
dage? We are told of our vessels being foreed into British 
ports, and compelled t* pay tribute; but nothing is said of their 
being invited into French habours, and then seized and confis¬ 
cated. 

With all the complaints against the British orders, and the si¬ 
lence as to French Decees, ought we not to be surprised in dis¬ 
covering that the orders are exceeded in severity and injustice by 
the decrees ? Let it be remembered, that this system of outrage 
ipon neutral rights originated on the part of France in the Berlin 
decree—that decree in effect, forbids neutrals to trade with Eng* 
!an<J or her colonies, or to purchase, or to carry their manufac¬ 
tures or produce. On commencing this system, France justified 
its principle, and thus compelled her adversary to retaliate by 
acts of the same injustice against neutrals who submitted to it. 
Tell me which wc have first and most to blame, the one who set 
the example, or him who followed it? 

It is a consideration also of great weight, that at the time 
when the Berlin decree issued, France was bound to the United 
States, by a solemn treaty to permit the trade which that decree 
piohihits—a treaty, signed by Bonaparte himself, and expressly 
providing for the freedom and security of our commerce with his 
enemy, in the event of war: and if the orders in council are a 
a violation of the law of nations ,they ore not, like the French de- 
rees, a breach of plighted faith. The orders tepve to us th; 


By tranalef 

JAN 15 19»6 



direct colonial trade. Our intercourse i not ir.temn 4 vn'- 
colonies and dependencies of France ; b the > (C rees inM^ 
all neutral commerce with the colonies ai ^•peudcncics * 1 ^ 
land, as wdl as with the mother country. -vir very shfns ^ich 
enter an English port are denationalised, i ar2 liable, aftr' the 

lapse of any time, though performing a v c cth;‘:4:sc inno¬ 
cent) to seizure and confiscation. 

Another feature of injustice and iniquity d ; « in- dslus the : 
crees from the orders. By the orders, our , -.Vints are a 
prized of the commerce which is interdicted. Fu time for not- 
of the prohibition is allowed, before the property i t nosed, h 
transgression of the orders, to be confiscated or sc c Kosut 
forbearance can be discovered in the decrees, whi* i 

discriminately executed upon the innocent and the L 01 
those who never heard, or could have heard of them, < 
manner as upon those who knowingly violate them. 

I hope, sir, it will not be understood, that I mean to defe 
orders in council, or to advise this nation to submit to them ; but 
I could wish to direct some portion of the warmth and indigna¬ 
tion, wnich has been expressed against them, a#**'* 1 *** those de¬ 
crees which produced them, and which exce^ them in iniquity 
and outrage. 

The avowed object of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, 
is a war with England. On this subject, I make but one question : 
Is it possible to avoid it with honor? 

If this possibility exists, the w r ar ought to be avoided. And it. 
is my opinion that it does exist. To this opinion I am, in a great 
degree, led by a want of confidence in the sincerity of the dispo¬ 
sition of our executive to settle our differences with G. Britain. 
Your measures have not been impartial as to the belligerents, and 
your negotiations have not been sincere as to England. The gen¬ 
tleman from Virginia has called this charge of insincerity, a mi¬ 
serable vision. I believe, sir, it is a miserable and melancholy 
fact—and if you will have patience with me, I will furnish prpbf 
enough to support the belief of the most incredulous. 

I mean to shew, that your government has had it in its power 
to secure peace with Britain, by the settlement of the differences 
between the two nations, and that the means have not only been 
nsglected, but means employed to prevent such a settlement 
r rom taking place. 

It will be necessary for us to consider, what those differences 
were. 

They may be referred to three heads: 

1st. The rule, as it is called, of the war of 1756. 

2d. Constructive blockades. 

3d. Impressment of seamen on board of American merchant 
.essels. 

I do not mean to say, that there were no other causes of com¬ 
plaint arising from the indiscretions and insolence of British com- 



4 


but trey had not the character of national differences, 

* uld pro' ably have soon ceased and been forgotten, if the 
/ £ of co). oversy between the grovernments had been aroica- 

. To settle the differences which I have stated, a 
Negotiation vas opened in London, in 1803, and carried on till 
December 1806. It is remarkable, that while this negotiation was 
depending and progressing, our government had recourse tt> a 
V ro in ).i nature calculated to repel, instead of to invite the Bri- 
. a government to a friendly settlement. In April, 1806, they 
pass a law prohibiting the importation of certain British goods. 

_The acknowledged object of this law was to coerce Britain to 

agree to our own terms. Did this law evidence a disposition to 
be friendly upon our part, or was it calculated to inspire a friend¬ 
ly temper on the part of England ? 

It was fuel to the flame of discord. The British government 
Is not less high spirited and proud than our own, and the attempt 
to force them to terms was the likeliest course which could have 
been pursued, by provoking retaliation to widen the breach be¬ 
tween the two countries. 

This measure enforced, when negotiation was going on, and 
promised a fax r nrable result, is no small proof in my mind, that 
the Executive was satisfied with the forms of negotiation, but 
wanted no treaty with England. 

I proceed to enquire whether our differences with Britain were 
not of a nature to be compromised ; and if our government had 
been sincerely disposed, whether they might not have retained 
the relations of amity with that power. 

First, as to the rule of 1756. This rule was founded on the 
principle that a neutral nation could not acquire a right to trade 
by the cession of one belligerent in time of war, which did not ex¬ 
ist, but was withheld in time of peace. The rule was supported 
on the principle that a neutral could not come in aid of a bellige¬ 
rent and cover its property on the ocean, when it was incapable 
of protecting itself. 

1 am not going to defend this rule, nor to enquire into its ori¬ 
gin. Thus much I will say, that if it was the British rule of 1756 
it was the express rule of the French maritime code in the years 
1704 and 1744. I will not trouble you with reading the decrees 
of the Trench monarchs, which I have on the table, made in the 
years mentioned,. and which prohibit to neutrals any but a direct 
trade to the colony of an enemy. Though the rule of 1756 may 
not be an ancient rule, yet we must admit, that it was not a new 
Tide introduced in the present war, and contrived to ruin or injure 
the American commerce. 

France was unable to trade with her colonies—the United 
States became her carriers, and under our flag the manufactures 
of the mother country were safely carried to the colonies, and the 
produce of the colonies transported to Europe. This trade was 
certainly as beneficial to France as profitable to the United States. 




5 


Britain only was the sufferer, and the rule of 1756 was revived 
in order to take from French commerce the protection of a neu¬ 
tral flag. Our government were certainly right in claiming the 
free enjoyment of this profitable trade, but the only question is, 
whether the neutral and belligerent pretension did not admit of 
adjustment by each side making an equal concession of points of 
interest. 

The treaty of 1806, which the President rejected, fairly com* 
promised the dispute on this subject. The 11th article of that 
treaty secured to the United States the carrying trade of France 
and her colonies, subject to terms somewhat inconvenient to the 
merchant, but rendering it not less beneficial to the nation. The 
treaty requires that goods exported from France or her colonies 
in American vessels, shall be entered and landed in the United 
States ; and when exported from France through the United 
States to her colonies, shall be liable to a duty of one per cent, 
and from the colonies of France of two per cent, to be paid into 
our own treasury. This regulation of benefis to the government 
by the duty which it gave to it, was of little prejudice to the 
trade, and there is no room to doubt that the trade, thus secured 
from the spoliations to which it was subject, would have flourish¬ 
ed beyond its former limits. 

Our differences, therefore, as to the carrying trade, so much 
liarrassed by the British rule of 1756, not only admitted of com¬ 
promise, but was actually settled by an arrangement in the treaty 
of 1806, with which the nation would have been perfectly satis¬ 


fied. 


The second head of dispute regards the practice of constructive 
blockade. The complaint on this subject was, that blockades were 
formed by proclamations, and that neutrals were compelled to 
consider ports as blockaded before whicn no force was stationed. 
That the principle of blockades was extended to unwarrantable 
limits, is most certainly true, and there is no question as to our 
having just cause to complain of the vexatious interruptions to 
which it exposed our trade. The present war between France 
and England is without a parallel between civilized nations—it is 
not a struggle for renown or for ordinary conquest, but on the 
part of Britain for her independence and existence. Principles of 
neutrality or of tight have been little regarded upon the land or 
upon the ocean—and the question with the belligerents has been 
less what the law of nations permitted them to do, than what 
their strength enabled them to accomplish. It is unlawful for a 
neutral to attempt to enter a blockaded port—but a port cannot 
be considered as blcckaded, unlees a force adequate to the end is 
stationed before it. The blockades, therefore, which England 
created simply by a proclamation, were an abuse of which neu¬ 
trals had just cause to complain. 

The United States did complain, and th^se complaints were 
listened to by the British government. The 10th art. of the treaty 





6 


of 1806 , has made provision on the subject: and though England 
has not renounced the pnnciple of which we complain, yet it is 
qualified by the notice which is required to be given to the vessel 
attempting to enter a blockaded port, before she is exposed to 
seizure and confiscation. The provision in this treaty would no 
doubt have corrected in a considerable degree the abuse from 
which we had suffered, and it was our policy to have waited for 
better times, and for completer remedy for the evil. 

But, Sir, the last head of dispute which I enumerated, was 
made the chief and most important ground of complaint against 
the British government—-I mean the searching of American ves- 
sels for British seamen. The right claimed by England was to 
seize her own seamen on board our private vessels. The right to 
search a public vessel, or to seize an American sailor was never 
asserted by the government. The claim, however, which was in¬ 
sisted on, involved a point of equal interest and delicacy to both 
countries. There is nothing novel in the presension, that a nation 
engaged in war, had a right to recall her subjects from foreign 
countries or from foreign service to assist her in the war. 

Every nation in Europe has claimed and exercised the right. 
Our government has not denied it—but the consequences of the 
manner of exercising it, have formed the ground of our com¬ 
plaint. Has a belligerent a right to search a neutral vessel for 
her seamen? I should suppose not. This question between other 
nations is of small importance; between the United States and 
Great Britain, it is of great magnitude. 

The sameness of manners, habits, language and appearance, 
render it always difficult, and sometimes impossible to distinguish 
between an English and an American sailor. If the right to 
search for British seamen were admitted, there would no longer 
be security for the American sailor • the right admitted, I have 
no doubt our navigation would be ruined. As an American, 
theiefore, I would never concede the principle. Let us see, how¬ 
ever, how the case stands in relation to Britain. Her navy is the 
shield of her salvation—whatever impairs its strength, diminishes 
her power and safety. Tenacious as she has ever been of per¬ 
sonal liberty at home, yet when men are wanted for her fleets, 
the Habeas Corpus sleeps. Her sailors are her right arm, which 
withers as she is deprived of them. From the seductions of our 
maritime service she has every thing to dread. Our merchants 
can give her seamen a dollar for every shilling which she is able 
to afford them. 

They shall be better fed, more gently treated, and exposed less 
to hardships and danger. Let them find a secure asylum on 
board our merchant ships, and how soon will the decks be thin¬ 
ned, of the English ships'of war. Which has the most at stake on 
this subject, England or America ? I will not decide the question; 
but this is evident, that neither will ever unconditionally relinquish 
the principle for which she has contended. At the present cri- 



sis, it was impossible for our government to expect the formal 
abandonment by the British government, of this right of search. 
What course then should they have pursued? They should have 
temporised on the point, as Britain was willing to do, and waited 
for a more propitious epoch, for the final arrangement of the 
dispute. 

Your commissioners, who negotiated the treaty, found that it 
was impracticable to obtain the cession of the principle for which 
they contended, and upon their own responsibility, to their great 
honor, to preserve the peace of the two countries, accepted as- 
surances from the British Ministry, which in their opinion, and 
I have no doubt in fact, would have effectually removed the abu* 
ses of which we complained. I beg pardon of the Senate for read- 
ing an extract from the letter of Messrs, Monroe and Pinkney, 
of the 3d January, 1807, which contains the assurances to which 
I refer: “ we are sorry to add, that this treaty contains no pro¬ 
vision against the impressment of our seamen ; our dispatch of 
the 11th of November, communicated to you the result, of our 
labours on that subject, and our opinion that although this go¬ 
vernment did not feel itself at liberty to relinquish formally by 
treaty, its claim to search our merchant vessels for British sea¬ 
men, its practice would nevertheless be essentially, if not com¬ 
pletely abandoned. That opinion has been since confirmed by 
frequent conferences on the subject with the British commissi¬ 
oners, who have repeatedly assured us, that in their judgment we 
were made as secure against the exercise of their pretensions, by 
the policy which their government had adopted in regard to that 
very delicate and important question, as we could have been 
made by treaty. It is propei to observe, however, that the good 
effect of this disposition, and its continuance may depend in a 
great measure, on the means which may be taken by the congress 
hereafter, to check desertions from the British service. If the 
treaty is ratified, and a perfect good understanding produced be¬ 
tween the two nations, it will be easy for their governments by 
friendly communications, to state to each other what they res¬ 
pectively desire, and in that mode to arrange the business as sa 
tisfactorily as it could be done by treaty-” Such was t>.e footing 
upon which our commissioners were wisely disposed to leave this 
delicate affair. And would to God, that our President, wishing 
as sincerely as his friends profess for him, to accommodate the 
differences between the two countries, had as prudently agreed to 
the arrangement made for him by his ministers 1 What has been 
the consequence of this excessive anxiety to secure our seamen? 
Why, that your service has lost more sailors in one year of Em¬ 
bargo, than it would have lost in ten years of impressment. 

But, Sir, in this lies the secret—a secret. I will dare to pro¬ 
nounce. Your President never meant to have a treaty with Great 
Britain. If he had intended it, he would have taken the treaty of 
the 31st of December, 1806. If he had intended it, he would ne 


a 


ver have fettered the commissioners with sine qua nons which 
were insuperable. 

it was an invariable article in the instructions, to form no treaty 
unless the claim to search merchant vessels for deserters was ut¬ 
terly abandoned—this was never expected, and at the arduous 
crisis at which it was insisted upon, it was impossible to expect 
it. And yet, rather than temporise on the point; rather than ac¬ 
cept the actual abandonment of the principle without its formal 
renunciation ; a treaty, the work of years, negotiated by his fa¬ 
vorite minister, and calculated to appease the animosities existing 
between the two nations is rejected. 

You will bear with me, Sir, while I say that this precipitate 
and fatal measure is the cause of all the embarrassments which/* 
we have felt, which we are daily feeling, and which we are likeb 
to suffer. I ask, why was this treaty rejected ? We are told for 
two reasons. 

1st. Because it contained no engagement against the impress¬ 
ment of American seamen on board merchant vessels. 

2d. Because of the collateral declaration of the British commis- 1 
sioners that England retained the right to retaliate upon France 
the principles of her Berlin Decree, if the United States should 
submit to its execution. 

I have shewn from the public documents furnished to us by 
the President, the footing upon Which our ministers placed the 
point of impressments. 

Our commissioners considered the assurances given them by 
the British ministers a better pledge for the safety of our seamen 
than a formal provision in the treaty. But if these assurances 
had even not been given, the treaty would not have compromitted 'j 
our rights,or prejudiced our interests on the subject; in the mean 
time it would have induced more friendly relations and prepared 
both countries for further concessions as their mutual interest^ 
might require To me 
to discover in our Pre 


e it is a matter both novel and surprising,; 
sklent this strong and unyielding attach- 


:ong and unyielding aitacn-. r , 
ment to the highest points of our maritime rights. I had thought^ 
before, that he was noi so friendly to our navy, to our merchants,] 
and to cur commerce. 

I had thought that he would rather our ships were exchanged 1 
for farming utensils, and our seamen converted into husbandman. 
But now, Sir, it seems so highly does he value our navigation, 
that he prefers hazarding all the calamities of war rather than 
suffer one feather to be forcibly plucked from the wings of com¬ 


merce. 

Can any one believe, that our government seriously intended to 
conclude a treaty with England, when our commissioners were 
instructed to make no treaty unless Britain formally consented, 
that our merchant Hags should protect every deserter from her navy? 

The insertion of this sine qua non in the instructions is sufficient 
to satisfy my mind, that there was no sincerity in the negotiation 
which was carried on with the British government. 


t 





We have been asked by the honorable gentleman from Virgi¬ 
nia, (Mr. Giles) whether it can be imagined, that such men as 
King, Monroe and Pinkney would have colluded with the exe¬ 
cutive, or if they would not have borne evidence of his insincerity, 
if such had been the fact. Mr. King, he tells us, is a federalist 
to whom we have lately given proof of confidence and attachment 
—•Mr. MOnroe he represents of a disposition lately not to be 
guilty of concealment through affection for the administration, 
and Mr. Pinkney is said also to be a federalist. 

All this ihe gentleman may take as true. But Mr. King, sir, 
was never engaged in this negociation—and as to Mr. Monroe 
and Mr. Pinkney, I most clearly acquit them of any collusion 
with the president ; because so far from colluding with him, 
they have acted against his secret and express instructions. Sure¬ 
ly 1 have no reason to doubt the sincere disposition of these gen¬ 
tlemen, to make a treaty with England, when they concluded 
one under the responsibility of acting against their orders. No, 
my Gharge of insincerity against the executive is founded upon 
the documents a long time secret, now public, and upon the. 
nature of the objections which have uniformly obstructed the ad¬ 
justment of our differences with Britain. 

The second impediment to the ratification of the treaty, was 
the declaration of lords Holland and Auckland which accompa¬ 
nied it. What did this paper impose upon us ? Resistance to 
the Berlin decree : and will you permit me to ask, whether it 
was ever your intention to submit to that decree ; you do not 
mean to submit to the orders in council, and does not the Berlin 
decree go to the extent of those orders ? Are you better prepared, 
or more disposed to submit to France than to England ? No, I 
hope we shall agree to fight before we consent that either of 
those powers shall give laws to the ocean. 

I know at one time it was pretended, that the Berlin decree 
was designed only as a municipal regulation ; municipal when it 
declared England and her dependencies in a state of blockade, 
*nd their manufactures and produce liable to capture ! It is true 
that the minister of the United States in France, got some such 
explanation of the decree from the French minister of marine. 
He did not consider it as derogating from the treaty of 180®, be¬ 
tween France and the United States. But when the emperor is 
applied to, by the grand judge, his answer is “ that since he had 
not thought proper to express any exception in his decree there 
is no ground to make any in the execution, with respect to any 
thing whatsoever.” When the minister of marine was applied 
to for his construction of the decree, he gave his opinion, but af¬ 
fected not to be the proper organ of communication on the sub¬ 
ject. In this you see that craft and force were both united for 
the most destructive execution of the decree. 

The decree was allowed to sleep for nearly a year—a public 
minister delivers his opinion that it was not to infract our treaty 

B 


received 





10 


—and, after our property, to an immense amount, is allured by 
these deceitful appearances into French ports, his Imperial ma¬ 
jesty declares, in effect, through his minister of justice, that 
the treaty with the U. States was not expressed as an exception 
in the decree, and therefore its provisions were to form no ob¬ 
struction to ; ts execution. So, sir, we have probably lost some 
millions of dollars by our anxiety to consider this decree as a 
municipal regulation. Suppose, however, it had not designed 
what its terms so plainly express, the blockade of the British 
isles. In such case, what embarrassment would our government 
have incurred by agreeing to the proposition of the English com¬ 
missioners to resist the decree if executed against our neutral 
rights ? If France had confined the execution of the decree to her 
own ports, Britain could not have complained of the execution 
cf her own law, within her own jurisdiction, and we should have 
had nothing to which we were to oppose resistance. But sup¬ 
pose the decree had been executed on the ocean, and you had 
become bound to resist its execution by force—would your un¬ 
dertaking have been greater than the offer you lately made to 
England, incase she would repeal her orders in council ? 

I shall hereafter have occasion to view this subject in another 
point of light ; but at present I ask, did not Mr Pinkney mean 
to tell Mr. Canning, under his instructions from the president, 
that if Great-Britain would repeal her orders in council, the Uni¬ 
ted Stales would resist the execution of the French Decrees ?— 
This is stated in the letter of Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, of 
the 23d of August, 1808, and admitted, as it is not denied, in the 
letter of Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning of the 8th of October, in 
the same yesr. Your government, then, would now agree to the 
terms which they so indignantly repelled when first proposed to 
them, and on the ground of which, in part, they refused the trea¬ 
ty which their ministers had negotiatiated. It would seem, them 
that no other material ground remains for the rejection of the 
treaty, than the want of a formal clause, to secure our merchant 
seamen against impressment. 

Is it your intention ever to have a treaty with Britain, or are 
the nations always to continue in a state of strife and contention ? 
You were offered the treaty of 1794, and you refused it. Messrs. 
Monroe and Pinkney negotiate a treaty in 18Q6. The President 
rejects it, and insists on a point in the most obnoxious form, 
which he knows will never be conceded, and without the conces¬ 
sion of which, no treaty is ever to be made. Does all this look 
like a sincere disposition to adjust our differences with Eng¬ 
land ? 

It is of importance, Mr. President, to consider, in the late 
negotiation, who were the men in power in the respective coun¬ 
tries. Can our President expect ever to see an English adminis¬ 
tration more disposed to treat upon favourable terms with this 
country, than the Fox administration ? The name of Fox is the 


11 


ihe most grateful English name that is known to an American 
ear. From my childhood I have heard that Fox was the friend of 
America. Fie was the early champion of our rights, when Bri¬ 
tain first attempted to deprive us of them. His voice was always 
raised in our favor, in opposition to the pqwer of the crown.— 
Fox was at the head of the ancient whig interest of England, and 
a firm supporter of the principles of freedom. He was, too a 
philanthropist, and deemed in sentiment, by some, a citizen of 
the world. He was additionally, Sir, a French citizen, as well as 
our worthy President. 

I hope it will not be thought *hat I mention, with any invidious 
view, this last circumstance. I state it only for the material pur¬ 
pose of sjiewing the community of character between these great 
men, which recommended them to the fraternization of the French 
people. If Mr. Jeffsrson was uot willing to acctpt the treaty 
which Mr. Fox offered him, from what administration in England 
can he ever expect a better ? And may I not ask also if he can 
look to other men in the United States in whom he will have more 
confidence, for their skill and integrity, than in those whom he 
employed in the late negotiation. We have all heard that Mr. 
Monroe was his early and bosom friend, and we have all seen that 
he has been his favorite minister. 

Let us also not forget the time, when the treaty was concluded 
—no time could have been more propitious—it was at the moment 
when England was sinking under the triumphs of her adversary. 
Bonaparte had just broken to pieces the power ©f Prussia, driven 
the Russians to their frontier, and converted their Emperor from 
an enemy to an ally. If you are not satisfied with the terms 
which England was willing to grant you at a moment of depres¬ 
sion, can you look for better, when she h^s less to fear from your 
enmity, or to hope from your friendship? 

You find, Sir, that your President was favoured by every cir¬ 
cumstance in the negotiation of the treaty which he finally reject¬ 
ed. It is not a little remarkable that he should have undertaken 
to reject this treaty, without consulting the Senate, his constituti¬ 
onal advisers. He was in possession of a copy of the treaty while 
the Senate were in session—they were not allowed to see it—he 
would not trust their opinions upon it : they might have approv¬ 
ed it; and the responsibility would have been still greater to have 
rejected it, after they had agreed to it. You will pardon me for 
speaking plainly—it is my duty to express my conviction, though 
I may happen to be wrong. 

To me it has always appeared that your President was taken by 
surprise, when he found a British treaty laid at his door. His in¬ 
structions to his ministers precluded the possibility of a treaty, 
and it never entered his head that they would have been daring 
enough to conclude a treaty against his orders. But the ministers 
having obtained what they considered the substance, disregarded 
the form, and sent a treaty as little leaked for as desired. 


12 




1 do not mean to contend that the President was bound to lay 
this treaty before the Senate, but in exercising the power to reject 
it without their advise, he took upon himself a great responsibi¬ 
lity, and is answerable for all the consequences of an act exclu¬ 
sively his ow r n. To this act, in my opinion, maybe attributed 
the present embarrassments of your country. Had tho treaty been 
accepted, our trade would have flourished as heretofore, and with 
it our agriculture, manufactures, and the fisheries. But it pleased 
our chief magistrate to reject it, and every day has since added to 
the gloom which has spread over our country. 

In this condition was the state of our affairs, when an unex¬ 
pected event occurred, calculated to inflame to the highest pitch 
the animosity of our citizens against the British government. I 
allude to the attack of the Leopard upon the Chesapeake, in June, 
1807. In relation to this outrage, the people of America felt but 
one sentiment. Amore wanton, flagitious and perfidious act was 
never perpetrated. It is an act which America never will nor 
ought to forgive, till it is expiated by adequate satisfaction. But 
still, Sir, we must restrain our indignation, while we enquire 
whose act it was, and who is answerable for it. The materhd 
enquiry is, was it, or has it become the act of the British govern¬ 
ment ? 

The British minister, as soon as the news of the occurrence 
reached;, him, voluntarily and unasked, declared that ij: w r as unau¬ 
thorised by the government. He disavowed it in Parliament, and 
the king himself confirmed the disavowal. 

It rested then as the act of Admiral Berkeley. The nation, 
however, were bound to make us satisfaction for the injury done 
us by their public servant. If they refuse adequate satisfaction, 
they adopt the act. The government were sensible of this obli¬ 
gation, and they took steps to comply with it. They sent a special 
minister for the sole purpose of making reparation for the injury 
we had suffered. This minister we received, and agreed to con¬ 
sider the outrage which had been committed, as the act of 
Berkeley. Considered as the act of the government, it would 
have been an act of open war. You commence a negotiation as 
to the terms of reparation ; but here the same spirit which reject¬ 
ed the treaty, baffles every effort to accommodate this new cause 
of offence. 

When informed of the attack upon one of our public vessels by 
a British man of war, under the orders of an admiral, our govern¬ 
ment had reason to apprehend that no individual, however high 
in rank, would have hazarded so daring an outrage, without the 
authority of his government. 

With this view, and to preserve peace and tranquillity in our 
harbours, we may consider the President as justified in issuing 
his proclamation, interdicting the entrance of British armed 
ships into the waters of the U. States. But, Sir, the moment it 
was ascertained, that the act of Berkeley was unathorised—-so 


X3 


soon as the government had solemnly disavowed it, and offered re. 
paration, the proclamation ought to have been withdrawn. Are 
you permitted to punish a nation for the acts of its subjects, in 
which it does not participate ? The law and the practice of civi¬ 
lized nations on this point is explicit and uniform. When the 
subject of one power offends against the sovereignty of another, 
this will not justify a retaliation upon other subjects of the same 
power with the one who offended. It has uniformly been our 
own doctrine, and it is the common interest of mankind to main¬ 
tain it, that in such case, you must apply to the sovereign of the 
party offending, and abstain from any act of hostility, till he re¬ 
fuses you reparation. This course our government did not 
pursue*—for the act of an individual, they retaliated against his 
nation. 

Upon the grounds which have been stated, you may excuse the 
issuing of the proclamation—but what excuse is there for its con¬ 
tinuance, when we acknowledge ourselves, in treating for repara¬ 
tion, that the act complained of is the act of an individual, and not 
of his government 

A proclamation like the one issued, without adequate cause, 
was a breach of neutrality, and a just cause of war. For to admit 
into your ports and grant succour to the armed ships of one bel¬ 
ligerent, while you exclude those of the other, is not consistent 
with that impartiality which belligerents are entitled to claim 
from neutrals. The point was so understood and so felt by the 
British government—and they required, as they had a right to 
do, that as they had not committed the act complained of, 
the proclamation, which had an operation or appearance of hos¬ 
tility against them, should be recalled, If they refused repara¬ 
tion, we had a right to redress ourselves—but had we a right to 
take the redress into ©ur own hands, and at the same time to re¬ 
quire them to make us reparation? When you ask justice, you 
must expect to do it. A nation should be as ready to perform 
its duties, as to insist upon its rights. The British government 
had given sufficient evidence of a disposition to grant satisfaction 
for the injury done us, by sending to this country a special minis¬ 
ter for the purpose; that minister was instructed to make volun¬ 
tary reparation, but to grant none under the coercion of the pro- N 

clamation. In his first communication to ihe Secretary of State, 
he informed him, that his powers did not allow him to make re¬ 
paration, unless the proclamation w'as withdrawn. The affair 
was then managed with sufficient adroitness to catch the popular 
rity of the country. When it was known that the proclamation 
must be first withdrawn, its revocation and the reparation were 
proposed by the Secretary as stimultaneous acts. Why was this 
proclamation so tenaciously insisted on ? If you had revoked it, 
and the reparation offered was deemed insufficient, you would 
have had no difficulty in renewing it. It is no task to our Presi¬ 
dent to issue a proclamation. At most we contend only for a point 


14 


of etiquette* a thing important perhaps in a monarchy, but very 
little respected among us republicans. Give me leave to say, that 
in this negotiation, I soon became persuaded that the difference 
in'question, was not to be settled by itself, but was to stand open 
in the general account. If there had been a sincere desire to 
settle it, the paltry measure of the proclamation would not have 
formed an obstacle for a moment. 

I have here a new and great proof that the executive is not sin¬ 
cerely desirous of a full and friendly settlement of all differences 
with England- It may be difficult to trace the motive which go¬ 
verns—but lean plainly discover the same spirit now, which. agU 
tated the nation in 1795—a spirit then subdued by the mighty in¬ 
fluence of Washington, but which has since risen with increased 
strength, and now dominates. 

I consider, Sir, that the measures of the administration have 
been not only insincere, but extremely feeble ; they will not set¬ 
tle their differences with England,and yet have not courage open¬ 
ly to quarrel with her ; they pass a non-importation act to punish 
the impressment cf seamen and the aggressions upon our carry¬ 
ing trade; they exclude, by proclamation, British armed ships 
from our waters, to avenge the outrage on the Chesapeake ; and 
what benefit to ourselves, or detriment to our adversary have 
these measures produced ? They are calculated to increase the 
animosity between the nations, but 1 know of no other effect they 
can produce. So far indeed have they been from constraining 
Britain to accede to our terms, that they have rendered her more 
regardless of our rights and interests She has since given us 
new and more feeling causes of complaint, by her orders in coun¬ 
cil of the 7th of January, and the 11th of November, 1807— 
These orders take from us the trade of nearly all Europe. They' 
are the counterpart of the French decrees God forbid that I 
should justify them! I will never admit that France or England 
have a right to make laws for the ocean: nor shall I hesitate, 
when they insist upon the execution of such laws, to declare my¬ 
self for war. I am as free as any gentleman in this Senate to 
protest against submission to the decrees of France, or the orders 
of England; but is not submission to the decrees as disgraceful 
a submission as to the orders? The gentleman from Virginia 
said nothing of the decrees ; nothing of a war with France; his 
resentment was confined to Britain. 

We have, Sir, to choose our enemy between these two nations. 
We are hardly equal to a contention against both at the same 
time. 

How does the case stand in relation to them? The Emperor 
first issues his Berlin decrees, interdicting our trade to England 
and her colonies. England then gave us notice, if you allow 
France to prevent your trading with us, we will not suffer you to 
trade with France. If you are tame enough to submit to a French 
decree, you will surely not be too proud to yield to a British or- 


/ 


15 


der. Assure us that you will resist the execution of the decree, 
and we will not retort its principles upon you. This our govern¬ 
ment declined doing, and left England to pursue her own course. 
Her government then issued the order of the 11th of November, 
retaliating the Berlin decree. I do not defend tins order; but if 
the administration had resisted, as they ought to have done, the 
Berlin decree, we should not have seen the order. What now is 
to be done ? England insists on her orders, as a measure of reta¬ 
liation against France. Prevail on France to repeal her decrees, 
or agree to resist the execution of them ; and if England then 
executes her orders, I will be as free as any man to go to war 
with her. 

No such course has been taken ; but what have we done ? Laid 
an Embargo. And for what purpose did we lay the Embargo ? 
This is a subject of conjecture to some ; but our government tells 
us, it was to preserve our ships, our sailors, and our mercantile 
capital. Some have said to preserve them from the operation of 
the orders in council. When the embargo was laid, the orders in 
council were not known in this country. 

Of this fact, I want no stronger proof, no stronger can exist, 
than that the President in his message to Congress, in which he 
recommends the embargo, says not a word of these orders in 
council. No; the embargo was not produced by the orders in 
council, nor by any thing which we heard from England, but by 
news which had then been recently received from France. 

We are told the embargo was to save our ships, our sailors, and 
mercantile capital. I do not believe that such was its object, but 
if such were its purpose, we have been miserably disappointed. 
The embargo for a short period, might have been a prudent mea¬ 
sure. As a step of precaution, to collect our seamen and mercan¬ 
tile capital, I should never have complained of it. But it is insult¬ 
ing to common sense, to propose it as a scheme of permanent se¬ 
curity, as it must daily consume, and finally annihilate the objects 
of its preservation. Your ships once in, and the danger known, 
you should heve left your merchants to their own discretion. 
They would have calculated the profits and the perils, and been 
determined by the balance of the account. No class of society is 
more capable of taking care of itself. 

It is said we have preserved our seamen. The President has 
as gravely repeated this remark in his message, as he recom¬ 
mended to us to devise means to dispose of our surplus revenue, 
at a moment when it was evident that the situation of the coun¬ 
try would drain the treasury of its last dollar. 

Where are your sailors ? They are not to be seen in your ports. 
One half that were employed by you have passed into foreign 
service, and many that remain, are to be found begging in your 
roads and at your doors. 

As to our ships and mercantile capital, the one tenth part of 
the loss from decay and waste and want of employment, would 


15 


have paid for an insurance against every danger to which they 
■would have been exposed. It is not my intention, Mr. President, 
to detain you with any details on this subject, as I should be com¬ 
pelled to repeat the same things which have been stated by ofher 
gentlemen on a former occasion. But there are some general 
views ot the subject not undeserving of notice, which yet remain 
to be taken. 

If the embargo were ever a measure of precaution it certainly 
has long lost that character. As a measure of coercion it was 
hopeless unless completely executed. If the party to be coerced 
was partially supplied, the object was defeated. 

Now, I ask you, sir, if your government ought not to have 
been acquainted with its own powers, its own people, and its own 
situation well enough to have known, that it was impossible for 
it to confine the whole produce of the country within its limits for 
any length of time ? Ought they not to have foreseen the vast 
temptations which have arisen and presented themselves, as well 
to our own citizens as to foreigners, to combine in order to break 
or elude your laws? Ought they not to have known that with 
our extent of coast and frontiers, with our numerous waters, that 
a wretched gunboat navy, aided even by ten thousand regulars, 
were not capable of covering our borders and shutting up the 
numberless outlets of the country ? Could they expect that patri¬ 
otism was to feed and clothe the people of the north ; or that 
thousands would submit to starve in order to contribute to the 
success of an experiment ? 

We all know that the opposition to the embargo in the Eastern 
States is not the opposition of a political party, or of a few discon¬ 
tented men, but the resistance of the people to a measure which 
they feel as oppressive and regard as ruinous. The people of 
this country are not to be governed by force, but by affection and 
confidence. It is for them we legislate, and if they do not like 
our laws, it is our duty to repeal them. 

It is madness to talk of forcing submission when there is ge¬ 
neral dissatisfaction. Your government is in the hands of the 
people ; it has no force but what it derives from them ; and your 
enforcing laws are dead letters, when they have once been driven 
to resist your measures. 

It would, Sir, be some consolation, amidst the sufferings which 
this miserable system has caused, if in looking abroad, we could 
discover that the nations who have offended and injured us felt its 
oppression only equally with ourselves. But when we find that 
we have been scourging ourselves for their benefit and amuse¬ 
ment, when they call tell us with indifference and contempt, that 
they feel for us, but that we must correct our own folly ; instead 
of meeting with the poor comfort which we expected, we are 
overwhelmed with accumulated mortification. 

Was this a measure against France?, No; the Emperor com¬ 
mends the magnanimous sacrifice which you have made of your 
commerce, rather than submit to British tyranny on the ocean* 


His Imperial Majesty never approves what he does hot like j 
fcnd he never likes what does not comport with his own designs. 

I consider it as admitted that the embargo was intended to co¬ 
erce England ; and the gentleman f©m Virginia now contends, 
that if it had been strictly executed, it would have had that effect. 
Nothing has happened that common foresight might not have 
foreseen. The gentleman has read to you extracts from an Eng¬ 
lish pamphlet, published before the embargo was laid, which pre¬ 
dicts the very evasions of the law, the discontents it would pro¬ 
duce, and the opposition it would meet with, Which we have all 
had the melancholy opportunity of witnessing. I know the pam¬ 
phlet was referred to for another purpose—to shew that British 
gold or influence had corrupted or seduced the Vermontese be¬ 
fore the embargo was imposed. The gentleman may believe the 
fact to be so if he pleases; but I say. Sir, that your government 
here with all its means of information, ought to have known as 
much about the condition of Vermont as a pamphleteer on the 
other side of the Atlantic. 

It seems now to be admitted, and the fact is too evident to 
be denied, that the embargo has failed in its coercive effect 
upon Britain, The want of bread, cotton, or lumber, has neither 
starved her subjects nor excited them to insurrection. Some 
gentlemen have had the shrewdness to discover an effect in an 
English price current, which might to be sure have been owing 
to the embargo, or might have been produced by the operation 
on the market of some private speculations. But it has enriched 
Canada, and has taught the islands their policy and ability to live 
Without us. 

Would to God, Mr. President, that the embargo had done as 
little evil to ourselves as it has done to foreign nations 1 

It is ourselves who are the victims of the miserable expedient. 
Your treasury will lose at least fifteen millions of dollars, and 
your country in addition not less than forty. This tax has not 
been so much felt, though it has not been in fact less paid, be¬ 
cause the embargo has not taken the money out of our pockets, 
but only prevented it from going into them. This measure has 
been not only ruinous to our interest, but it is hostile to the ge¬ 
nius of our government. It calls for an increase of your regular 
army, and a vast augmentation of your military force. Ten 
thousand bayonets were not sufficient to enforce it, but fifty thou¬ 
sand volunteers (as I have seen by a bill on the table) were to be 
invited to assist in its execution. 

The measure of an administration which arms citizen against 
citizen, or requires the soldier t© act against the citizen, is bane¬ 
ful to liberty.' If persevered in, there would soon be an end of 
free government. 

The effect is also to be deprecated, upon the spirit cf your mi¬ 
liary. They are called upon to execute laws they are unable to 


18 


construe, and in obeying their*t>rders are exposed to the commis¬ 
sion of murder. 

Your naval forces are sent out to cruise, not for enemies, but 
for defenceless fellow-citizens, and they return not to boast of a 
gallant battle but of a miserable seizure, which may bring po¬ 
verty upon some wretched family in their own country. 

It has been often said in defence of the embargo, that the nation 
had nothing left but that measure, submission or war. Can you 
distinguish between the embargo and submission? Can you pre¬ 
tend to say that it is a voluntary self-restriction imposed as a mat¬ 
ter of choice ? Can it be denied that it has been forced upon us by 
the conduct of one or of both of the belligerents ? And with a 
full knowledge of the fact, can you describe it as any thing but 
vile abject submission? France tells you, you shall not trade to 
Britain ; you obey her—Britain then tells you, you shall not trade 
to France ; you submit. You have not resisted the decrees or or¬ 
ders, but have complied with the object of both. We have borne 
the burthen of the embargo till it has almost broken our backs, and 
-even when we are sinking under it, we pretend to say, it was no 
task to bear it. In this case it is then said, there only remained 
submission or war—Submission I put out of the case. I trust in 
God it never entered into the head of one American ! But I deny 
that war is necessarily the alternative; and I never will admit it, 
till I see sincere efforts made to accommodate our differences 
with England. The President in his message at the opening of 
Congress, would give us the impression that Britain had refused 
the last and the fairest offer it was in the power of government 
to make, in order to preserve peace. It will be important for us 
to understand the nature and extent of that offer. The proposition 
no doubt was made by Mr. Pinkney, in conformity to his instruc¬ 
tions. To avoid error, I will take the liberty of reading to the 
Senate the words cf Mr. Pinkndy to Mr. Canning on the subject, 
in his letter of the 23d of August last: 

" I had the honour to state to you, Sir, that it was the inten¬ 
tion of the President, in case Great Britain repealed her orders as 
regarded the United States, to exercise the power vested in him 
by the act of the last session of Congress, entitled “ An Act to 
authorise the President of the United States under certain condi¬ 
tions, to suspend the operation of the act laying an embargo on 
all ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United 
Slates, and the several supplementary acts thereto,” by suspend¬ 
ing the embargo law and its supplements as regards G. Britain. 

I am authorised to give you this assurance in the most formal 
xnonner.” 

Now, Sir, what is the amount of this boasted offer ? Nothing 
more than the assurance of our minister of an intention of the 
President to remove the embargo in case the orders in council 
were actually repealed. G. Britain was to repeal her orders, allow 
the President to make the most of that act, with her enemy, and 


19 


trust to his executing his good intention, when it should suit hts 
good pleasure. The offer to England related only to the em¬ 
bargo, when this experimental measure, so far from being injuri¬ 
ous to her, was adding to her wealth and strength. It leaves her 
navigation without a rival on the ocean, and has restored to her 
more seamen, than she could have impressed in ten years. Well 
may Mr. Canning say, there is no assignable relation between 
the removal of the embargo, and the repeal of the orders in 
council. 

The President had instructed his minister to assure the British 
government, that the embargo was designed solely as a municipal 
regulation, and not as an act in any degree host.le to them. 

The orders in council were a measure of hostility against France; 
and we offer to revoke a municipal regulation operating in favour 
of Britain, if she will relieve us from the pressure of a measure 
adopted against her enemy. But let me ask was there any offer 
made to rescind the proclamation or to repeal the non importation 
law ? two measures much more offensive and hostile to G. Britain 
than the embargo. With these laws in force, it was a mere 
mockery to offer the removal of the embargo. What more proof 
do we want, thaijrthis transaction affords, that the Executive has 
not been sincere in his endeavours to restore a good understand¬ 
ing between this country and England. And therefore it is, that 
I contend that war is not unavoidable with that nation. I confers 
Sir, I should think a war with England, one of the greatest evils 
which could befal this country, not only from the sufferings 
which it would inflict upon it; but also from the fatal connection 
with France to which it would give birth. 

We have seen what has been the course of the government in 
relation to Britain ; and I will beg a few moments to examine 
what has been its conduct in regard to France ? The last propo¬ 
sition made to Britain is well known—the documents fully dis¬ 
close it ; but what at the same time was proposed to the French 
goverment ? This we know little of. We have not been fur¬ 
nished with the correspondence with that government on the sub¬ 
ject. The transaction is covered with a dark and impenetrable 
Veil.. The President tells us in his message that the same propo* 
sals were not made to the two belligerents, and it would seem 
from what he hints, that the offer to France in ease she repealed 
her decrees, was to join her in the war against England. It can¬ 
not be denied that we have lost more by the spoliations, and have 
been more harrassed by the arbitrary edicts of France than of 
England. By the treaty of 1800, we gave up more than twenty 
millions of dollars which had been seized, and against all right 
confiscated in France. Since that time we are officially informed 
that an amount nearly equal has been seized, confiscated or se¬ 
questered. She has wantonly burnt our ships on the ocean, and 
made no compensation. Her Berlin decree of the 21st Novem¬ 
ber, 1806, commenced the present system of outrage upon neui 


20 


tral rights. In effect it interdicts all trade with England ana her 
colonies. This is followed by the Milan decree of the seven¬ 
teenth of December, 1807. Under this edict an American vessel 
which has been searched or visited against her will, by a British 
cruiser, or is proceeding,to, or returning from England, is liable 
to be captured as good priise. And finally, to complete this mons¬ 
trous, system, conies-the Bayonne decree, the 17th of April, 
18(58, which declares'every American vessel found upon the 
ocean, liable to seizure and confiscation. Opposed to these ac¬ 
cumulated violations of out neutral rights, what steps has our 
government taken agaiitst France ? Have they passed a non¬ 
importation act, issued a proclamation, or imposed an Embar¬ 
go? The last measure is general in its terms, but is avowedly 
against England alone. No—they have contented themselves 
with memoraliazing, remonstrating, and protesting. Against 
England, we took every step short of war—against France, wc 
have employed nothing but gentle words. Has your government 
then shewn an equal resentment against the wrongs suffered from* 
these two powers ? 

It may be from the habit of enduring ; but we do not feel an 
aggression from France with the same quickness and sensibility 
that we do from England. Let us see, Sir, the same conduct 
observed.with regard to both belligerents—let us see the impedi¬ 
ments ttfa friendly settlement with Britain removed—let us wit¬ 
ness a sincere effort made, to regulate the intercourse of the two 
nations by a treaty formed on principles of mutual concession, and 
equal interest, and I will answer for it, if Great Britain persists 
in her orders, that you will find no division in this country on the 
question whether we shall submit to them or resist their execu¬ 
tion. 

Permit me, Mr. President, to detain you a few moments longer. 
I am sensible that I have already trespassed upon the indulgence 
of the Senate, and I ^hall hasten to conclude the remarks which I 
have thought it of importance to make upon the resolution which 
has been submitted. 

The objects of the resolution are embargo, non-iatercourse and 
non importation as to England and France, and their colonies.'— 
The existing embargo is to be repealed only in part-one half of 
the channel of your rivers is opened, the ether is to be embargoed ; 
and vessels may proceed to sea, but they must not pass through 
the embargoed waters. 1 can well conceive of one port in the U. 
States being embargoed, and the others open ; but of an embargo 
which gives the right to every vessel in a harbour to leave it, I 
confess I have no comprehension. I should have supposed that 
the honourable gentleman might have ventured to repeal the em¬ 
bargo generally, and trusted to the provisions on the subject ©f 
non-intercourse to accomplish wdiat seems to be the object in view 
in partially retaining it. Sir, it is, a strange infatuation that that 


21 


name of this odious measure should be preserved) when the thing* 
itself is abandoned. 

And what, Sir, are we to gain by a non-intercourse? It can 
never benefit the nation—it is nothing more than a part of that 
miserable musquito system, which is to sting an#irritate England 
into acts of hostility. I have no doubt she sees the object, and she 
will take care not to give us the advantage which would be derived 
from war being commenced on her part. But I ask what will be 
the effect of non-intercourse ? I see no other than that it will 
require two voyages instead of one to transport our produce to 
the markets of the interdicted countries. You carry your raeri 
chandise to Lisbon, and there deposit it ; and from thence it is 
carried in foreign ships to England and France. Who will pay 
the expense of this circuity of transportation ? The United States. 
It will be deducted from the price of your produce. Can the 
gentleman contrive no system which will operate with less seve¬ 
rity upon ourselves than upon those whom he deems our ene¬ 
mies? If the resolution has no design, but what is apparent on 
the face of it, it is evident that its sole operation is against our¬ 
selves. Its inevitable effect will be to reduce the profit of what 
v/e have to sell, and to increase the expense of what we have to 
purchase. I can perceive also, Sir, that it will be a measure of 
unequal pressure upon different sections of the country; and that 
its weight will fall heaviest upon that part of, the union already 
too much galled to suffer any addition to its burthen. The lum¬ 
ber, the live stock, the fish, and the articles of common exporta¬ 
tion to the eastward, will not bear the expense of double freights. 
Will they thank you for repealing the embargo, and adopting a 
substitute which continues to shut the ports of the north, while it 
opens those of the south ? Will they thank you for a measure, 
which deprives them even of the miserable consolation of having 
fellow sufferers in their distress? If this resolution be adopted, 
you do nothing to heal the wounds which you have inflicted. If 
New England loses her trade, she will derive no comfort from its 
being under a non-intercourse, and not under an embargo law. 

It is a part of the resolution, that we are to import no produce 
or merchandise from England or France, or their colonies. Do 
you expect, Sir, that a law to this effect could ever be executed in 
time of peace ? As to the manufactures of England, she can make 
them the manufactures of any country in Europe ; she will give 
you the exact marks and stamps, and packages of any place to 
which your trade is open ; and she will defy you to distinguish 
her fabrics from those they attempt to imitate. But, Sir, the 
consequence chiefly to be dreaded from such a measure would be. 
the practice of smuggling, to which it would certainly give birth. 
Gan you expect in one moment to change the habits of a whole 
country ? We know, Sir, the power of habit: it is a second nature. 
Ca\y an act of Congress instantly change your nature? No, Sir ; 
they who can offord it, will have what ti>ey have been accustomed 













\ 






4 • 




t * 


% 




k , 

v •, 


,:4\ 

# fetX r* 








» 



*» 






























































• 






























































































































































■» y 


* 

































































































































































I 




























































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 






























































































































